The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

JohnnyC:NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature rangeB. have a higher summer temperatureC. have a lower winter temperatureD. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

Try your luck :)

You're right. There are just a couple of issues. In a warming global climate the higher summer temperature would outweigh the lower winter temperature. We're not seeing that. We're seeing ocean temperature averages not shifting as much as land temperature averages, and I'm not talking about lagging behind, I'm talking about the yearly and monthly temperatures swinging back to the cooler side of average every so often. We're not looking at a steady but slightly behind warming in oceanic temperatures, we're looking at temperatures which simply contradict the picture presented by land data.

I think a lot of liberals feel obligated to support climate alarmists because it's been presented as the scientific side, but too many take an unscientific approach to the data. Rather than asking questions and pointing out discrepancies they blindly accept data they don't understand and mock people who understand it better than they do simply because "the consensus" tells them they should.

Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

viscountalpha:Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...

You can't do anything without having an effect on your environment... period. I don't care if you're even camping with the utmost care in the world, you'll still impact the environment in some way. Don't be one of those idiots that tries to say that we have no impact on our atmosphere despite there being 7 billion + of us on the planet, each having some impact on our environment (including our atmosphere). We are not the solitary cause, we are contributing to the process in a way that is increasing our global temperature.

And actually, you can wait. Because that isn't likely to happen for a very long time. You won't live long enough to see "the world burn". Your life must be pretty damn miserable if that's how you really feel. I hope it gets better for you. I'm a pretty happy person for the most part, so I tend to want to be a good steward for this planet. I'm not seeing an option for a new home if we fark this one up too bad.

I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

MarkEC:Farking Canuck: More than one place on the globe is still not global. If I recall correctly, these papers suggested that there were some temperature readings in the Antarctic that corresponded with the MWP. This is a far cry from being a global effect.

The Godfather of AGW, Michael Mann believes the MWP was initiated by increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. If that ain't global the nothing is global.

And here is the evidence that you do not understand how science works.

Some points:- Michael Mann can believe what he wants. He may or may not be correct. His opinion is not evidence.- If you and Michael are correct then it may have well been global. There is not enough evidence to say at this point.- Even if it was global, the evidence shows that it is a completely different mechanism to today's warming (and therefore not relevant)- Again hypocrisy reigns supreme - normally Michael Mann is the crazed leader of the global conspiracy to destroy economies* but, because he said something you like this time, you will happily quote him as a reliable source. Is he only reliable when he says things you like???

* Someone please explain to me why anyone wants to "destroy the economy". I hear this over and over but I never hear why. I know why big oil wants to delay any action that reduces their profits but I cannot see a motive for the evil 'greenies' alleged desire to destroy the economy.

1. The "warmists" are correct and CO2 is really a major driving force. The fact that the temperature hasn't been climbing for the last 16 years indicates that natural forces that are beyond our understanding are equaling out that increase. If it wasn't for all that CO2 we've dumped into the air we would be at the precipice of a new ice age.

2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

3. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We will continue improving technology that will allow us to wean ourselves off of fossil over the coming decades, learn more about the climate and how to avoid global climate catastrophes, and life will go on.

I see three possibilities with respect to slavery.

1. The North was correct and we should have ended slavery.

2. The South was correct and we should have kept slavery.

3. The truth in somewhere in the middle. Wait, no it isn't. This is a stupid argument. Giving equal weight to a ridiculous idea and then splitting the difference with established science is moronic.

zombiejesusnightmare:NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: , just people who like to jump on the "science" bandwagon regardless of their actual foundation in science.

the science bandwagon? wow.

"'Science' bandwagon" not "science bandwagon." My point is their conclusion isn't scientific, they just support it to seem like they're on the rational side because they're told that people who actually ARE scientists all agree on it, even when that's not true.

You're adorable.

Thanks, I've always thought I had some boyish charm.

But if you're not serious, I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?

In all honesty, weather it's man-made or natural (pun intended obviously), will there be a change in how mankind approaches climate change?

No, there will not be. There are things we could do. Reduce emissions, smarter use of resources/farmland, etc. But no significant changes will be made.

There is great talk of the "fiscal cliff" quickly approaching, but zero serious talk about ensuring that mankind can move forward intelligently.

Then again, what may happen in the future? For one, Yellowstone is sure to go within the next 100 or 1000 or 10000 or so years. That ought to decimate a good majority (myself included if I'm still kicking). And if that doesn't happen, something else will. It's our destiny. More than likely as clean water for drinking and irrigation becomes more scarce over time, large wars will break out which will accomplish the same. Quite frankly, I propose we burn off all of our fossil fuels now rather than later, and let the chips fall where they may. I wish I had an idealistic view on the future of mankind, but all we have done is wage war against each other since the dawn of mankind, and that is not about to change. Add to the mix clean water problems, clean air problems, current wars, industrial production, everyone laughing at smart cars (well deserved but still), where are we headed?

Even in this country, the United States of America, nearly half of the populace voted for Romntard, the anti-thesis of the solution. Recycle all you want, turn off your key at the drive-through, vote for peace rather than war, but the march of mankind will see this through to the end, for better or worse.

Our only hope is to learn how to live in space (the far future), yet we cannot even fund NASA to a tenth of the extent required.

Eventually the sun will swallow our lovely blue planet Earth, and all of our remains will be vaporized in the ensuing fireball.

Bontesla:david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

True that, it's gonna be a shame when we lose the Greenland ice sheets it's gonna be a real tragedy if we lose the Antarctic ice.

GAT_00:The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

Below the average 20th century temp. Or, probably, the 1950s+ average temp (when we had satellites for global averaging) would be my guess. As others have pointed out, it's been significantly warmer and colder in the past.

Not that it's not worth some concern, but the "everybody panic" bit is maybe some oversell there.

Bontesla:david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

log_jammin:david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Kriggerel:I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Ummm... No. That isn't accurate. Neither is the rest of your attempt at deflection.

The term denier is used because there is ample evidence and when they look at it, they claim it is wrong... not because they have contrary evidence, but because they don't like what the evidence says. A skeptic is someone who has looked at evidence and has valid reasons why they feel the evidence is invalid. Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?

I doubt you do... if you did, you probably would have mentioned that rather than trying to deflect from the topic.

I'm sorry, but the graph I have right here from the FundedByExxon Institute that I got from Michelle Malkin's site show that it was chilly in my neighborhood yesterday, therefore all the fat cat climate scientists have to give up their Bentleys and Lambos and parade in front of the Fox News headquarters wearing polar bear outfits and carrying signs admitting it was all a big moneymaking super scam.